[Audit Report on the Receipt and Expenditure of Funds by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission for Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Report No. 98-I-712
Title: Audit Report on the Receipt and Expenditure of Funds by
the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission
for Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997
Date: September 30, 1998
**********DISCLAIMER**********
This file contains an ASCII representation of an OIG report.
No attempt has been made to display graphic images or illustrations.
Some tables may be included, but may not resemble those in the printed version.
A printed copy of this report may be obtained by referring to the PDF
file or by calling the Office of Inspector General, Division of
Acquisition and Management Operations at (202) 208-4599.
******************************
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
AUDIT REPORT
RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
BY THE UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION
AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION FOR
FISCAL YEARS 1996 AND 1997
REPORT NO. 98-I-712
SEPTEMBER 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Secretary
FROM: Richard N. Reback
Acting Inspector General
SUBJECT SUMMARY: Final Audit Report for Your
Information - "Receipt and Expenditure of
Funds by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation
and Conservation Commission for Fiscal
Years 1996 and 1997" (No. 98-I-712)
Attached for your information is a copy of the subject final
audit report. The objective of our audit was to determine
whether the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Commission received and expended mitigation and conservation
funds in compliance with Titles II, III, and IV of the Central
Utah Project Completion Act.
We found that the Commission received, expended, and awarded
mitigation and conservation funds in compliance with the
applicable titles of the Act. However, in administering funds
awarded to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District under
certain cooperative agreements, the Commission did not (1)
obtain copies of single audit reports or sufficient
documentation on the Federal funds expended by the District to
substantiate that the funds were used for intended purposes;
(2) limit cash advances to immediate disbursement needs; and
(3) collect interest earned on the advance funds, as required
by the Single Audit Act and the Department of the Treasury's
Financial Manual. The Commission also did not meet the
reporting requirements of the Central Utah Project Completion
Act. As a result, the Commission did not ensure that District
expenditures totaling about $1.7 million were made in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the cooperative
agreements, that funds advanced to the District were limited
to immediate disbursement needs, and that interest of about
$55,000 earned on excess advances was recovered. In addition,
the Congress and other Federal and State of Utah officials may
not be aware of the mitigation and conservation measures
planned and implemented or of the effectiveness of these
measures because the annual reporting requirements of the Act
were not met.
In its response, the Commission agreed with all seven of our
recommendations to address these issues. Based on the
response, we considered all of the recommendations resolved
but not implemented.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please
contact me at (202) 208-5745 or Mr. Robert J. Williams,
Assistant Inspector General for Audits, at (202) 208-4252.
Attachment
W-IN-OSS-001-98-M
September 30, 1998
AUDIT REPORT
Mr. Michael C. Weland, Executive Director
Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission
102 West 500 South - Suite #315
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Dear Mr. Weland:
Subject: Audit Report on the Receipt and Expenditure
of Funds by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation
and Conservation Commission for Fiscal Years
1996 and 1997 (No. 98-I-712)
This report presents the results of our audit of the
receipt and expenditure of funds by the Utah
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission.
The objective of our audit was to determine whether
the Commission received and expended mitigation and
conservation funds in compliance with Titles II, III,
and IV of the Central Utah Project Completion Act.
Our audit included a review of Commission receipt and
expenditure activities that occurred during fiscal
years 1996 and 1997. We performed the audit based on
a July 3, 1997, request from the Executive Director of
the Commission and as a followup to our August 1996
report.[1]
BACKGROUND
The Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment
Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) consisted of 40
separate titles covering a wide variety of Bureau of
Reclamation projects and activities. Titles II
through VI of the Act, known as the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, provided for the orderly
completion of the Project by the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District, with oversight provided by the
Department of the Interior's Central Utah Project
Completion Act Office. The Act also increased the
Project's appropriations ceiling; provided for the
construction of facilities to deliver water for
irrigation, municipal and industrial use, and instream
flows to specified areas within the Project service
area; and authorized fish, wildlife, and recreation
mitigation and conservation activities.
**FOOTNOTES**
[1]:The Office of Inspector General survey report "Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission" (No. 96-I-1114) stated that the
Commission had not established adequate financial and administrative
policies and procedures and that its accounting records were not
auditable (see the Prior Audit Coverage section of this report). Title
IV, Section 402(e), of the Central Utah Project Completion Act also
requires the Office of Inspector General to audit the Commission's
financial management of the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Title III of the Act authorized the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission to coordinate
implementation of fish, wildlife, and recreation
mitigation and conservation activities among Federal,
State of Utah, and local government resource
management agencies, universities, and nonprofit
environmental organizations. The Commission, which
was established in 1994, is responsible for planning
and administering Federal mitigation and conservation
funding authorizations.[2] Mitigation and conservation
appropriations are received through the Central Utah
Project Completion Act Office and deposited into the
Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account.
The Act authorizes the Commission to use up to $1
million annually to fund its administrative
expenses.[3]
Title IV of the Act established the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Account in the U.S.
Treasury. Annual contributions into the Account are
obtained from the Department of the Interior ($5
million), the Department of Energy's Western Area
Power Administration ($5 million), the State of Utah
($3 million), and the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District ($750,000).[4] The Act requires
contributions from the Department of the Interior and
the State to be deposited as principal into the
Account.[5] While the contributions from the District
and the Department of Energy are available to the
Commission for expenditures in accordance with the
Act, including administrative expenses of the
Commission, the Commission may elect to deposit
unexpended contributions into the Account as
principal. According to the Act, "[A]ll funds
deposited as principal in the Account shall earn
interest in the amount determined by the Secretary of
the Treasury on the basis of the current average
market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of
the United States of comparable maturities." Once the
Title II and Title III project authorizations
($173 million in total) are fully appropriated, the
Commission will operate on future Department of Energy
contributions and on the interest earned on the
principal invested in the Account.
The Commission develops and selects mitigation and
conservation projects pursuant to the requirements in
Titles II and III of the Act and as adopted in the
Commission's 5-year plan.[6] Under the Commission's
current 5-year plan, projects are designed to address
ecosystem impacts in five Utah watersheds, such as
dewatered streams and losses of bird and riparian
habitat, fish and wildlife habitat, angling
opportunities, and wetlands. The Commission enters
into various agreements, such as interagency
agreements and cooperative agreements, with entities
to perform the mitigation and conservation projects
specified in the Act and as outlined in the
Commissions's 5-year plan. As of September 30, 1997,
the Commission administered 55 active agreements,
totaling about $32 million, with 13 cooperators. The
largest cooperative agreements, which accounted for
about $31 million, are with the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District, the Bureau of Reclamation, the
Department of Agriculture's U.S. Forest Service, and
the State of Utah's Division of Wildlife Resources.
During fiscal years 1996 and 1997, the Commission
received Federal appropriations and contributions
totaling about $58.5 million, obligated and expended
about $2 million for Commission administration,
awarded about $20.6 million for mitigation and
conservation projects, and invested about $28.3
million (Appendix 2). The remaining $7.6 million was
unobligated at the time of our review.
SCOPE OF AUDIT
Our fieldwork was conducted at the Commission's office
in Salt Lake City, Utah, from November 1997 through
April 1998. To accomplish our objective, we reviewed
the Central Utah Project Completion Act and related
legislative history and legal documents; the
Commission's 5-year plan; and receipts of
appropriations and contributions, financial reports
and supporting accounting records, and administrative
and cooperative agreement expenditures for fiscal
years 1996 and 1997.[7] Inaddition, we visited the
Kamas fish hatchery project and lands acquired by the
Commission for the Provo River restoration project. We
also interviewed officials from the Commission; the
Bureau of Reclamation's Upper Colorado Region and the
Office of the Solicitor's Intermountain Region in Salt
Lake City; and the U.S. Department of the Treasury in
Washington, D.C. The purpose of the interviews was to
obtain clarification of the Act and an understanding
of the Commission's mitigation and conservation
program, accounting system and financial reports,
investments of Title IV contributions, and deposits at
the Treasury.
Our audit was made in accordance with the "Government
Auditing Standards," issued by the Comptroller General
of the United States. Accordingly, we included such
tests of records and other auditing procedures that
were considered necessary to accomplish our objective.
We also evaluated the Commission's system of internal
controls related to the receipt of appropriations and
contributions and the expenditure of administrative
and mitigation and conservation project funds. We
identified an internal control weakness pertaining to
the Commission's administration of certain cooperative
agreements with the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District. We also found that the Commission had not
submitted the annual reports required under the Act.
These weaknesses and recommended corrective actions
are discussed in the Results of Audit section of this
report. The recommendations, if implemented, should
improve the internal controls in these areas. We also
noted minor issues related to accounting and financial
reporting that will be reported to the Commission in a
separate letter.
PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE
The General Accounting Office has not conducted any
audits of the Commission. However, in August 1996,
the Office of Inspector General issued the report
"Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Commission" (No. 96-I-1114), which concluded that the
Commission had not established adequate financial and
administrative policies and procedures and that the
Commission's accounting records of the receipt and
expenditure of funds for fiscal years 1994 and 1995
were not auditable. As a result, we could not
determine whether the Commission's funds were expended
in accordance with the Act. The report did not
contain any recommendations because the Commission was
taking corrective actions to implement sound financial
and administrative systems. The Commission also had
contracted with a certified public accounting firm for
financial management and accounting services, which
included assisting the Commission in the development
of fiscal accounting, budgeting, contracting, and
investing procedures. Our current audit found that
the accounting firm had provided financial management
and accounting services and that the Commission had
hired a financial officer, who has made significant
improvements to the Commission's financial management
system. We also found that the Commission's
accounting records were auditable and that financial
and accounting policies and procedures were being
established.
RESULTS OF AUDIT
We determined that the Commission received, expended,
and awarded mitigation and conservation funds in
compliance with Titles II, III, and IV of the Central
Utah Project Completion Act. Specifically, for fiscal
years 1996 and 1997, the Commission received and
properly accounted for the annual contributions and
appropriations, authorized and expended funds for
appropriate Commission administrative activities and
mitigation and conservation projects, complied with
the Act's annual limitation on administrative
expenses, and properly invested contributions.
However, in administering funds awarded to the Central
Utah Water Conservancy District under certain
cooperative agreements, the Commission did not (1)
obtain copies of single audit reports or sufficient
documentation on the Federal funds expended by the
District to substantiate that the funds were used for
intended purposes; (2) limit cash advances to
immediate disbursement needs; and (3) collect interest
earned on the advance funds, as required by the Single
Audit Act and the Department of the Treasury's
Financial Manual. In addition, the Commission did not
meet the reporting requirements of the Central Utah
Project Completion Act. These conditions occurred
primarily because Commission officials were not fully
aware of all of the Single Audit Act requirements,
received differing interpretations from Department of
the Interior personnel as to the applicability of the
Treasury Manual requirements, and had what they
considered to be higher priorities which precluded the
Commission from meeting the annual reporting
requirement. As a result, the Commission did not
ensure that District expenditures totaling about $1.7
million were made in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the cooperative agreements, that funds
advanced to the District were limited to immediate
disbursement needs, and that interest of about $55,000
earned on excess advances was recovered. In addition,
the Congress and other Federal and State officials may
not be aware of the mitigation and conservation
measures planned and implemented or of the
effectiveness of these measures because the annual
reporting requirements of the Act were not met.
Single Audits
The Commission did not obtain copies of single audit
reports or sufficient information to determine whether
the District expended Commission funds in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the cooperative
agreements. The Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended,
requires that recipients of Federal financial
assistance in excess of $300,000 obtain an
organizationwide audit to determine whether (1) their
financial statements fairly present their financial
position in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles, (2) their internal control
systems provide reasonable assurance that they are
managing Federal financial assistance programs in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and
(3) they have complied with laws and regulations which
may have a material effect on their financial
statements. The audits performed under the Single
Audit Act identify reportable conditions[8] or
material weaknesses[9] in the cooperators' internal
control structure, which are presented to the
cooperators' management, along with recommendations
for corrective actions.
We found that the District and the State of Utah,
which included the Division of Wildlife Resources,
were audited under the Single Audit Act for funds
expended in fiscal years 1995 through 1997. However,
the Commission's Financial Officer told us that she
was not aware that the Commission should obtain copies
of the audit reports as a funding agency. As a result
of our audit, the Financial Officer obtained copies of
the District's single audit reports for fiscal years
1996 and 1997 and the State of Utah's single audit
reports for fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
We reviewed the single audit reports for both entities
and concluded that the reports did not contain
sufficient details to ensure that the funding provided
by the Commission was included in the audits.
Therefore, we believe that the Commission should
obtain additional information on project expenditures.
In that regard, we found that the Division of Wildlife
Resources was providing the Commission with adequate
supporting documentation for the project costs
incurred but that the District was not providing such
documentation. For example, the Commission's
accounting records indicated that the District had
acquired land valued at about $958,000 in 1997 under a
cooperative agreement, but the District had not
provided any supporting documentation for the
acquisition.
The Commission's Executive Director stated that the
Commission did not apply the same level of
accountability for one of the cooperative agreements
with the District as that applied to the other
agreements with the District and with other
cooperators because the Central Utah Project
Completion Act specifically directed the District to
construct a water development project for which the
Commission was required to contribute funding.[10]
The Commission's Project Manager also stated that
requiring additional documentation for District costs
would result in duplicate record keeping by the
Commission and the District. However, we believe that
since the Commission had entered into a cooperative
agreement with the District, the Commission should
ensure that District costs are properly accounted for.
For example, we found that the other cooperators we
reviewed had provided the Commission with supporting
documentation, such as computer printouts of project
costs and copies of invoices and payroll records.
This supporting documentation was sufficient for the
Commission's Financial Officer and project
coordinators to approve and process the cooperators'
reimbursement requests. Accordingly, we believe that
the Commission has not obtained sufficient supporting
documentation to ensure that District costs totaling
about $1.7 million[11] as of December 31, 1997, were
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
cooperative agreements.
Advances of Funds
The Commission did not ensure that the funds advanced
to the District under cooperative agreements were used
in a timely manner. Volume 1, Part 6, Section 2025, of
the Department of the Treasury Financial Manual,
applicable to all Federal agencies, requires that
advances to a recipient organization be limited to the
minimum amounts necessary for immediate disbursement
needs and that the timing of the cash advance be as
close as administratively feasible to the actual
disbursement by the recipient organization. However,
the Commission's cooperative agreements with the
District do not require that advances be limited to
immediate needs, including one agreement which states
that the Commission will advance all appropriated
funds within 30 days of the Federal appropriation.
The Commission's Executive Director stated that funds
were paid to the District because the Central Utah
Project Completion Act required the Commission to
contribute funds for the construction of a water
development project. However, we noted that neither
the Act nor the applicable appropriation acts provided
for advance payment of project funds. As of December
31, 1997, the Commission had advanced about
$5.5 million to the District, of which the District
had reported expenditures of only about $1.9 million.
Accordingly, at the time of our audit, the Commission
had advanced about $3.6 million more than would have
been required to reimburse the District for work
performed under the cooperative agreements.
Collection of Interest
The Commission did not collect the interest earned on
the funds advanced to the District. Volume 1, Part 6,
Section 2075.30a, of the Treasury Manual requires that
any interest earned by a recipient organization on
Federal funds be promptly refunded to the Federal
program agency. Section 2075.30b of the Treasury
Manual also requires that the Federal program agency
deposit the interest earned into a Treasury receipt
account. The Commission's cooperative agreements with
the District require that the District provide
quarterly reports on the interest earned on funds
advanced and supporting bank statements. However, the
District had not provided the Commission with adequate
documentation on the interest earned or the supporting
bank statements. Contrary to Treasury requirements,
the cooperative agreements also indicated that the
interest earned on the advances would be considered
supplemental funds of the District to be used for the
performance of work under the terms and conditions of
the agreement. Commission officials told us that they
had not collected the interest earned because they had
received differing interpretations from Bureau
personnel as to the applicability of the Treasury
Manual requirements to the Central Utah Project
Completion Act. Accordingly, the Commission was not
certain whether the interest earned was to be used for
project purposes, retained by the Commission, or
returned to the Treasury. As a result of our audit,
the Commission's Financial Officer obtained bank
statements and supporting documentation from the
District through December 31, 1997, which showed that
the Commission should have recovered interest totaling
about $55,000 earned on the advances, which according
to Treasury Manual requirements, should be remitted to
the Treasury.
Annual Reporting Requirements
The Commission did not complete or submit the annual
reports required by the Central Utah Project
Completion Act. Section 301(g)(6) of the Act requires
the Commission to submit annual reports to the
Secretary of the Interior, the Governor of the State
of Utah, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, and the House of Representatives Committees
on Interior and Insular Affairs and on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries. The reports are to describe actions
taken and to be taken by the Commission, the
effectiveness of the mitigation and conservation
measures implemented to date, and potential revisions
or modifications to the applicable mitigation and
conservation plan. The reports were due on December 1
for 1995, 1996, and 1997. The Commission's Executive
Director told us that the reports had not been
submitted because of other higher priorities of the
Commission, which included the Commission's
involvement in preparing the 5-year plan, implementing
financial and administrative policies and procedures,
and meeting financial reporting requirements. The
Executive Director also stated that much of the
information required for the annual reports had been
included in the Commission's 5-year plan and quarterly
financial reports. A "draft" cumulative report
through September 30, 1997, was prepared by the
Commission's Public Information Officer but had not
been approved by the Executive Director or the
Commissioners at the completion of our audit. As a
result, the Congress, the Secretary of the Interior,
and the Governor of Utah may not be fully aware of the
mitigation and conservation measures that are planned
or that have been performed by the Commission and the
effectiveness of such measures.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Commission's Executive Director:
1. Obtain annual single audit reports from those
cooperators which receive Federal financial assistance
of more than $300,000 per year to substantiate that
the costs were incurred for mitigation and
conservation project purposes and to identify
reportable conditions or material weaknesses. If the
reports do not contain sufficient details to determine
whether the funds provided by the Commission were
included in the audit, the Commission should require
the cooperators to provide supplemental supporting
documentation of project costs.
2. Request additional supporting documentation from the
Central Utah Water Conservancy District to
substantiate that costs of $1.7 million were incurred
by the District in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the cooperative agreements.
3. Amend cooperative agreements with the District to
limit the advances of funds and the timing of the
advances to the District's immediate funding needs.
4. Ensure that the District provides quarterly interest
earnings reports and supporting bank statements in a
timely manner.
5. Amend cooperative agreements with the District to
require that the interest earned on cash advances be
remitted to the Commission for deposit in the
Treasury.
6. Recover the $55,000 of interest earned on funds
advanced to the District and remit it to the Treasury.
7. Complete and submit the required annual reports to
the Congress and other Federal and State officials.
Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Commission Response and Office of Inspector General
Reply
In the September 25, 1998, response (Appendix 3) to
the draft report from the Executive Director, Utah
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission,
the Commission agreed with all of the recommendations.
Based on the response, we consider the seven
recommendations resolved but not implemented.
Accordingly, the unimplemented recommendations will be
referred to the Assistant Secretary for Policy
Management and Budget for tracking implementation, and
no further response to the Office of Inspector General
is required (see Appendix 4).
The legislation, as amended, creating the Office of
Inspector General, requires semiannual reporting to
the Congress on all audit reports issued, the monetary
impact of audit findings (Appendix 1), actions taken
to implement audit recommendations, and identification
of each significant recommendation on which corrective
action has not been taken.
We appreciate the assistance of Commission personnel
in the conduct of our audit.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Williams
Assistant Inspector General
for Audits
cc: Commissioners, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission Program Director,
Central Utah Project Completion Act Office
**FOOTNOTES**
[2]:The funding consists of a $28 million authorization applicable to
the Title II mitigation activities that were previously committed to by
the Bureau of Reclamation and a $145 million authorization applicable to
the Title III mitigation activities.
[3]:Sections 301(I)(2) and 402 (b)(3)(C) of the Act limit the
Commission's administrative expenses to $1 million annually and require
the amount to be indexed proportionally each year based on the increase
in the Consumer Price Index for urban consumers, published by the
Department of Labor. The Commission's administrative expenses were
limited to $1.056 million for fiscal year 1996 and $1.086 million for
fiscal year 1997.
[4]:Department of the Interior, State of Utah, and Central Utah Water
Conservancy District contributions are to be made through fiscal year
2001, while the contributions from the Department of Energy will
continue into perpetuity to provide a funding source for the Commission
and its successor, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. In
addition, the contributions from the District and the Department of
Energy are to be indexed proportionately each year based on the increase
in the Consumer Price Index for urban consumers, as published by the
Department of Labor.
[5]:The Account principal provides a source of income to manage and
maintain the investments in fish and wildlife and recreation features of
the projects performed in accordance with the Act. Funds deposited into
the Account as principal may not be withdrawn or expended for any
purpose by the Commission.
[6]:The Act required the Commission to adopt a comprehensive 5-year
operating plan through a prescribed public planning process and
consultation with Federal and state agencies. According to the Act, the
plan was to consist of the specific objectives and measures that the
Commission intended to administer, and only those projects included in
the plan could be implemented. The initial 5-year plan was adopted in
May 1996 and is updated annually with a comprehensive review of projects
and priorities every 5 years.
[7]:We reviewed expenditures related to Commission administration and
six cooperative agreements, which consisted of two agreements with the
District and one agreement each with the Bureau of Reclamation; the U.S.
Forest Service; the State of Utah's Division of Wildlife Resources; and
the University of Nevada at Reno, Nevada.
[8]:Reportable conditions are matters coming to the auditor's attention
that should be communicated to agency management. These matters relate
to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the agency's
internal control structure that could adversely affect the agency's
ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data
consistent with the assertions of management in the financial
statements.
[9]:A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design or
operation of one or more of the specific internal control structure
elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors
or irregularities in amounts that would be material to the financial
statements being audited may occur and not be detected in a timely
period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions.
[10]:Section 303(b)(4) of the Act requires the Commission to provide
$10.5 million to the District for the construction of the Daniels Creek
Replacement Pipeline ($10 million) and for the leasing of water
($.5 million) as a part of the Wasatch County Water Efficiency Project.
[11]:The District claimed total project costs of $1.9 million as of
December 31, 1997. The District's single audit report for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 1997, identified Commission project costs of about
$.2 million.
APPENDIX 1
CLASSIFICATION OF MONETARY AMOUNTS
----------------------------------------
Funds To Be
Finding Area Put To
Better Use
Collection of Interest
$55,000
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX 2
SOURCES AND USES OF UTAH RECLAMATION
MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION FUNDS
FOR FISCAL YEARS 1996 AND 1997
Sources:
Amounts
Federal Appropriations:
Title II Projects $4,832,000
Title III Projects 25,371,000 $30,203,000
Annual Contributions (Title IV):
U.S. Department of Interior 10,000,000
U.S. Department of Energy* 10,715,000
State of Utah 6,000,000
Central Utah Water Conserv. District* 1,606,700
Total 28,321,700
$58,524,700
Uses:
Commission Administrative:*
Expenditures 2,004,204
Unobligated 137,896 2,142,100
Mitigation and Conservation Projects:
Expenditures and Obligations 20,615,081
Unobligated 7,445,819 28,060,900
Investment 28,321,700
Total $58,524,700
*Sections 402(b)(3)(C) and 301(I)(2) of Public Law 102-275 state that
the annual contributions and Commission administration expenses "shall
be increased proportionally on March 1 of each year by the same
percentage increase during the previous calendar year in the Consumer
Price Index for urban consumers, published by the Department of Labor."
APPENDIX 3
Page 1 of 4
APPENDIX 3
Page 1 of 4
APPENDIX 3
Page 1 of 4
APPENDIX 3
Page 1 of 4
APPENDIX 3
Page 1 of 4
APPENDIX 4
STATUS OF AUDIT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------
Finding/
Recommendation
Reference Status Action Required
--------------------------------------------------------
1, 2, 3, Resolved; No further response to the
4, 5, not Office of Inspector General is
6, and 7 implemented required. The recommendations
will be referred to the
Assistant Secretary for
Policy, Management and Budget
for tracking of
implementation.
--------------------------------------------------------
ILLEGAL OR WASTEFUL ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE REPORTED
TO THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL BY:
Sending written documents to:
Within the Continental United States
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
1849 C Street,N.W.
Mail Stop 5341
Washington, D.C. 20240
Calling:
Our 24 hour
Telephone HOTLINE
1-800-424-5081 or
(202) 208-5300
TDD for hearing impaired
(202) 208-2420 or
1-800-354-0996
Outside the Continental United States
Caribbean Region
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
Eastern Division- Investigations
1550 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 410
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Calling:
(703) 235-9221
North Pacific Region
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
North Pacific Region
238 Archbishop F.C. F'lores Street
Suite 807, PDN Building
Agana, Guam 96910
Calling:
(700) 550-7428 or
COMM 9-011-671-472-7279